It's not just you, Schultz. I just found out about the guy and I'm already bored of him. This sort of thing always happens, so even his apparent meltdown is boring. The RCs did it to Father Corapi, who I never liked (didn't hate, but didn't understand all the fawning over), only to find out that he too was human. Ho hum.

P.S.- Isn't writing books/blogs/movies/whatever about their conversions the bread and butter of the convert? I guess I should start a blog or something...could get a book deal out of it, if I play my cards right.

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

I agree, Jetavan, although I would say he completely leaves Orthodoxy when he says Scripture was written by Bronze-Age misogynists trying to justify their sins. The Church of the Apostles agrees with St. Peter who said "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Are the two mutually incompatible?

Yes, justifying one's sins is mutually incompatible with being a holy man speaking by the Holy Spirit.

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

I agree, Jetavan, although I would say he completely leaves Orthodoxy when he says Scripture was written by Bronze-Age misogynists trying to justify their sins. The Church of the Apostles agrees with St. Peter who said "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Are the two mutually incompatible?

Yes, justifying one's sins is mutually incompatible with being a holy man speaking by the Holy Spirit.

In Matthew 19, Jesus refers to a certain Mosaic commandment that could be seen as giving men an unfair advantage over women, and yet Jesus does not deny that Moses was still inspired by God:

Quote

(7 ) “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”(8 ) Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (9 ) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I think there's a difference between being "inspired by God" and being "absolutely inerrant": the former does not necessarily include the latter, but it might.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 02:47:13 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

I agree, Jetavan, although I would say he completely leaves Orthodoxy when he says Scripture was written by Bronze-Age misogynists trying to justify their sins. The Church of the Apostles agrees with St. Peter who said "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Are the two mutually incompatible?

Yes, justifying one's sins is mutually incompatible with being a holy man speaking by the Holy Spirit.

In Matthew 19, Jesus refers to a certain Mosaic commandment that could be seen as giving men an unfair advantage over women, and yet Jesus does not deny that Moses was still inspired by God:

Quote

(7 ) “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”(8 ) Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (9 ) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I think there's a difference between being "inspired by God" and being "absolutely inerrant": the former does not necessarily include the latter, but it might.

Jetavan, there is no end to "foolish controversies" (2 Tim. 2:23, Titus 3:9) and we are commanded to avoid them.

If you decide to take the low view of Scripture which Schaeffer espouses and say it is unfair to women or any other group I can't stop you. As for the questions you asked, consult the patristic commentaries written by those whom we consider pillars of the Church. They should be more authoritative for you than anything I, Frank, or any rationalist theologian has to say.

I would have to abandon common sense to defend Schaeffer's current views and try to align them with the Faith defended by the Fathers. He would have been called to repentance rather than coddled in an age that was more concerned with being faithful than clever as our own age seems to be.

Part of the objection of some Orthodox to him is his support for legal abortion. In fact, that is the major issue that those Orthodox who I've spoken with about Schaeffer have pointed out and talked about.

I am not sure, what Schaeffer said exactly on that issue, but I want to make one thing very clear:Orthodoxy is not a political doctrine. In Orthodoxy, we believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. But whether including the procedure in the state's penal law is the right way to fight it is a question that is not subject to church dogma.

And please, if someone has left Orthodoxy, let the diocesan bishop declare it. It is not up to us to kick people out of the Church.

We may and should discuss problematic teaching, but shouting "heretic" or "apostate" is something that very serious, which should not be done as lightly as some do here. Especially considering that the person mentioned here is a layman, expressing his personal views, and neither a member of the clergy nor an official catechist or whatever... the Orthodox Church is for the salvation of all mankind, it need not only consist of apologists.

Part of the objection of some Orthodox to him is his support for legal abortion. In fact, that is the major issue that those Orthodox who I've spoken with about Schaeffer have pointed out and talked about.

I am not sure, what Schaeffer said exactly on that issue, but I want to make one thing very clear:Orthodoxy is not a political doctrine. In Orthodoxy, we believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. But whether including the procedure in the state's penal law is the right way to fight it is a question that is not subject to church dogma.

And please, if someone has left Orthodoxy, let the diocesan bishop declare it. It is not up to us to kick people out of the Church.

We may and should discuss problematic teaching, but shouting "heretic" or "apostate" is something that very serious, which should not be done as lightly as some do here. Especially considering that the person mentioned here is a layman, expressing his personal views, and neither a member of the clergy nor an official catechist or whatever... the Orthodox Church is for the salvation of all mankind, it need not only consist of apologists.

I agree with all that you said, Gorazd, with the caveat that if a well-known spokesperson for Orthodoxy or even clergy start teaching things at odds with the faith then the Faithful are fullfilling their vocation by "answering a fool according to his folly." If the Faithful spoke out against the bishops after Florence, we need not be shy about contradicting Frank Schaeffer.

It is beyond any of us to know whether Schaeffer is still Orthodox in his heart and his standing before God is known only to Him, but knowing whether the positions someone takes are Orthodox or not is not normally a great mystery.

but knowing whether the positions someone takes are Orthodox or not is not normally a great mystery.

We must still be careful. What did he say exactly, what did the editor add, or quote him out of context? What did he mean and intend?

We also must be careful not to mix Orthodoxy with politics (as I said, believing Orthodoxy is a sin doesn't oblige you to believe that you must take political action to outlaw it) or with Protestant doctrine. Indeed, Orthodoxy teaches that the Bible was written by human beings and not every word of it is absolutely inerrant, even though they were inspired by God.

but knowing whether the positions someone takes are Orthodox or not is not normally a great mystery.

We must still be careful. What did he say exactly, what did the editor add, or quote him out of context? What did he mean and intend?

We also must be careful not to mix Orthodoxy with politics (as I said, believing Orthodoxy is a sin doesn't oblige you to believe that you must take political action to outlaw it) or with Protestant doctrine. Indeed, Orthodoxy teaches that the Bible was written by human beings and not every word of it is absolutely inerrant, even though they were inspired by God.

Agreed- we must be careful, in this case the articles comments are completely consistent with articles I have read by Schaeffer himself so I am no reason to believe he was misquoted.

Agreed- both Liberal and Conservatives need to be careful that their Faith informs their stand on the issues rather than their political preferences influencing their Faith.

Agreed- not every word of Scripture is inerrant (or there would be no textual variations between manuscripts) but every teaching is inerrant. This is also the Faith of the Church. One of Schaeffer's contentions is that much of the moral law in the Bible is really made up by men who wanted to justify their oppression of others. It is not to say that every word of Scripture is inerrant to recognize that such a view has no place in the Church of the Fathers. It is a private interpretation completely at variance with the Fathers.

It is easier for me to believe that Schaeffer's own issues cause him to find the Bible flawed than to believe that the Bible is flawed because it does not agree with Schaeffer and other modernizing moralists.

It's not just you, Schultz. I just found out about the guy and I'm already bored of him. This sort of thing always happens, so even his apparent meltdown is boring. The RCs did it to Father Corapi, who I never liked (didn't hate, but didn't understand all the fawning over), only to find out that he too was human. Ho hum.

I can see the comparison in terms of attention paid to them, but Corapi hasn't said the kind of things Schaffer has.

Well yeah, I didn't mean that Fr. Corapi had, just that from what I can tell they both seem to be darlings of certain segments of their respective communions, and have in common the inevitable fall from grace that comes with that. Thank God nobody likes me or cares what I have to say (not even me ), else the same would happen to me!

but knowing whether the positions someone takes are Orthodox or not is not normally a great mystery.

We must still be careful. What did he say exactly, what did the editor add, or quote him out of context? What did he mean and intend?

Here's one thing he said:

Quote

As I argue in my book, Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism), maybe if there is a God, or if Jesus spoke truth about how we are to care for others or if the Light of Love in my life has taught me anything, then the best thing a believer in any actual God can do is to admit that a lot of the Bible is hate-filled blasphemy.

Here is a quote of Schaeffer's view of the God who gave us the the Bible. After declaring that his Mom was "much nicer than her God", he goes on: “Mom struggled to make her ‘God’ kindly. But it’s tough to rehabilitate the judgmental misanthropic Spirit of Divine Pettiness who commands no beard trimming, ‘lest the land vomit you also out when you defile it”.

An Orthodox review of the salient chapter from, "Sex, Mom, and God". There are some more doozies there.

Here is a quote of Schaeffer's view of the God who gave us the the Bible. After declaring that his Mom was "much nicer than her God", he goes on: “Mom struggled to make her ‘God’ kindly. But it’s tough to rehabilitate the judgmental misanthropic Spirit of Divine Pettiness who commands no beard trimming, ‘lest the land vomit you also out when you defile it”.

An Orthodox review of the salient chapter from, "Sex, Mom, and God". There are some more doozies there.

Hi David, I thought this was some protestant thing which I know little about except what I read here. What I am referring to here is "her God". Are possessive adjectives other than "our" commonly used amongst protestants? If not, could he be referring to his mother's conception of God?

Thanks for the link, I will take a longer look at it although I have no interest in his biographical books. For the record I do not care for his sense of humor which borders on ridicule, which I abhor.

Here is a quote of Schaeffer's view of the God who gave us the the Bible. After declaring that his Mom was "much nicer than her God", he goes on: “Mom struggled to make her ‘God’ kindly. But it’s tough to rehabilitate the judgmental misanthropic Spirit of Divine Pettiness who commands no beard trimming, ‘lest the land vomit you also out when you defile it”.

An Orthodox review of the salient chapter from, "Sex, Mom, and God". There are some more doozies there.

Wow. If I had read those quotes and then read Orthodox posters here who cite Schaeffer as an example of Orthodox apophaticism, I would never have become Orthodox. Sorry, those statements are absolutely outrageous and offensive. If I ever say such rubbish, I would hope my Christian brothers and my Spiritual Advisor would keep me accountable, referring me to King David's prayer: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

Arius, for all his heresy, at least spoke respectfully of God the Father.

That doesn't really tell me anything. What was the Arianism of Arius? What specific beliefs got St. Nicholas all riled up?

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

Arius, for all his heresy, at least spoke respectfully of God the Father.

That doesn't really tell me anything. What was the Arianism of Arius? What specific beliefs got St. Nicholas all riled up?

Objection: You're leading the witness.

Arius spoke blasphemy concerning the nature of the Son but respected the Father and the Spirit as well as the Scriptures; Schaeffer is speaking blasphemy concerning the entire Godhead and His Scriptures. I did not intend to say anything more technical than that.

Here is a quote of Schaeffer's view of the God who gave us the the Bible. After declaring that his Mom was "much nicer than her God", he goes on: “Mom struggled to make her ‘God’ kindly. But it’s tough to rehabilitate the judgmental misanthropic Spirit of Divine Pettiness who commands no beard trimming, ‘lest the land vomit you also out when you defile it”.

An Orthodox review of the salient chapter from, "Sex, Mom, and God". There are some more doozies there.

Hi David, I thought this was some protestant thing which I know little about except what I read here. What I am referring to here is "her God". Are possessive adjectives other than "our" commonly used amongst protestants? If not, could he be referring to his mother's conception of God?

Thanks for the link, I will take a longer look at it although I have no interest in his biographical books. For the record I do not care for his sense of humor which borders on ridicule, which I abhor.

I agree with you, Opus. Every book he writes seems to take a scorched earth policy against those who disagree with whatever his current position happens to be. The interview that opened this post is the best I have ever seen him in discussing his views.

As for phrases like "her God", I don't remember anyone ever using third person phrases like this. I think it is used by Schaeffer to put some distance between himself and the Christian conception of God while also hinting that everyone's concept of God does not come from any Revelation but is purely subjective. I have also often heard New Agey types use it this way and perhaps for the same reasons.

However, I often heard phrases like "My God" especially when people were claiming promises from Scripture for themselves. Even though the way they do it is a bit odd for Orthodox at least this phrase is more Biblical as we often see in the Psalms.

Arius spoke blasphemy concerning the nature of the Son but respected the Father and the Spirit as well as the Scriptures; Schaeffer is speaking blasphemy concerning the entire Godhead and His Scriptures. I did not intend to say anything more technical than that.

Now we're starting to get going here (with this p-ssing contest). Let me play! I'm going to argue that if Jesus is merely a created being, albeit a divinized one, that Christianity is useless and meaningless. A created being can't save us, thus Christianity would be a scam. All of it. Schaeffer, on the other hand, is just a sincere seeker, torn because he feels like Christianity is the best option, the truth even, yet there is obviously disgusting stuff in the Bible that needs to be faced up to. Arius was thus much worse. Ok, your turn.

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

From what I have heard, isn't Frank Schaeffer sort of a -censored- who is always dissing his father and parents because they raised him Evangelical? Wait, that sounds really familiar. OMG, Frank Shaeffer is the future me Not entirely the perfect Orthodox role model.

Arius spoke blasphemy concerning the nature of the Son but respected the Father and the Spirit as well as the Scriptures; Schaeffer is speaking blasphemy concerning the entire Godhead and His Scriptures. I did not intend to say anything more technical than that.

Now we're starting to get going here (with this p-ssing contest). Let me play! I'm going to argue that if Jesus is merely a created being, albeit a divinized one, that Christianity is useless and meaningless. A created being can't save us, thus Christianity would be a scam. All of it. Schaeffer, on the other hand, is just a sincere seeker, torn because he feels like Christianity is the best option, the truth even, yet there is obviously disgusting stuff in the Bible that needs to be faced up to. Arius was thus much worse. Ok, your turn.

I don't like to play Devil's advocate for someone speaking blasphemously, Asterikos, the Devil's team is not one I wish to play on :-)

Add to that there probably won't be an end to this game if we start it since it rare for someone to change their view through internet debates.

But I do object to the premise of your argument. Whether he is a sincere seeker is beyond my knowledge or yours, he may be totally fallen to his apparent passion of anger for all we know. But I am curious- what in his recent writings leads you to believe "he feels like Christianity is the best option, the truth even"?

He is not wrestling with how to face up to the stuff he disagrees with in Scripture, he is simply calling Scripture disgusting and stupid and those who believe it fools.

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane. I like Peter Kreeft. Should I get this?

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane.

Yes, even if it doesn't directly help us to understand what Schaffer is arguing, it at least helps for understanding what Schaffer is arguing against.

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

I do not know who this guy is Peter nor do I apparently really understand what he is trying to say.

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions.

This is akin to the domino theory that got us into the Vietnam War. I consider this kind of reasoning dangerous. I never considered how contemplation of bible verses or what some priest tells you about what Saint Augustine wrote is equivalent to taking a narcotics.

Quote

If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

He must be referring to a particular person in order to make this statement. Who is it? Why is he using the term "If" if he believes this is common? Just curious.

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

I do not know who this guy is Peter nor do I apparently really understand what he is trying to say.

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions.

This is akin to the domino theory that got us into the Vietnam War. I consider this kind of reasoning dangerous. I never considered how contemplation of bible verses or what some priest tells you about what Saint Augustine wrote is equivalent to taking a narcotics.

Quote

If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

He must be referring to a particular person in order to make this statement. Who is it? Why is he using the term "If" if he believes this is common? Just curious.

Sorry, I should have elaborated. It's a letter written from one devil to another about how to tempt a "patient" (that's the "he"). ("The Enemy" and "He" refer to God, naturally, hence "It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible" means "It's the first exception to the rule that all God's dogmas are infallible").

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

I do not know who this guy is Peter nor do I apparently really understand what he is trying to say.

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions.

This is akin to the domino theory that got us into the Vietnam War. I consider this kind of reasoning dangerous. I never considered how contemplation of bible verses or what some priest tells you about what Saint Augustine wrote is equivalent to taking a narcotics.

Quote

If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

He must be referring to a particular person in order to make this statement. Who is it? Why is he using the term "If" if he believes this is common? Just curious.

Sorry, I should have elaborated. It's a letter written from one devil to another about how to tempt a "patient" (that's the "he"). ("The Enemy" and "He" refer to God, naturally, hence "It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible" means "It's the first exception to the rule that all God's dogmas are infallible").

Thanks Peter, it is clear now. I never read the Screwtape Letters as well.

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane.

Yes, even if it doesn't directly help us to understand what Schaffer is arguing, it at least helps for understanding what Schaffer is arguing against.

Possibly, but I think I'd have to know you better to really say whether it would be worth your while.

P.S. I'm only about 50 pages into the book, but based on what I've read so far, I suspect that a lot of the Orthodox posters would like it on some level. Kreeft seems to have the same underlying, shall we say, triumphalism that many of you have. (I say "underlying" b/c he's Catholic so naturally it plays out differently.)

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane.

Yes, even if it doesn't directly help us to understand what Schaffer is arguing, it at least helps for understanding what Schaffer is arguing against.

Possibly, but I think I'd have to know you better to really say whether it would be worth your while.

P.S. I'm only about 50 pages into the book, but based on what I've read so far, I suspect that a lot of the Orthodox posters would like it on some level. Kreeft seems to have the same underlying, shall we say, triumphalism that many of you have. (I say "underlying" b/c he's Catholic so naturally it plays out differently.)

It's been a while since I read both books but, as an Orthodox triumphalist, I agree :-)

Both books are good reads but I think I remember enjoying the Mere Christianity-ist CS Lewis one better. Nothing against Kreeft but it is hard for anyone to compete with CS Lewis for sheer enjoyability.

Didn't Lewis say something to the effect that The Screwtape Letters were the book he enjoyed writing least because he did not like having to think like a demon would in order to write it?

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

P.S.- Isn't writing books/blogs/movies/whatever about their conversions the bread and butter of the convert? I guess I should start a blog or something...could get a book deal out of it, if I play my cards right.

Several priests in the OCA have forbidden their parishioners to gift that video to anyone.

My own parents were totally turned off to Orthodoxy after listening to Frankie's video.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

Quote

For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't." Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane.

Yes, even if it doesn't directly help us to understand what Schaffer is arguing, it at least helps for understanding what Schaffer is arguing against.

Possibly, but I think I'd have to know you better to really say whether it would be worth your while.

P.S. I'm only about 50 pages into the book, but based on what I've read so far, I suspect that a lot of the Orthodox posters would like it on some level. Kreeft seems to have the same underlying, shall we say, triumphalism that many of you have. (I say "underlying" b/c he's Catholic so naturally it plays out differently.)

It's been a while since I read both books but, as an Orthodox triumphalist, I agree :-)

Both books are good reads but I think I remember enjoying the Mere Christianity-ist CS Lewis one better. Nothing against Kreeft but it is hard for anyone to compete with CS Lewis for sheer enjoyability.

Didn't Lewis say something to the effect that The Screwtape Letters were the book he enjoyed writing least because he did not like having to think like a demon would in order to write it?

In my opinion, Screwtape Letters was the least enjoyable of CS Lewis' works because of all the demonic talk. However, the book was brilliant in exposing demonic argumentation and debate tactics still in use by those who oppose Christianity.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 03:10:06 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

If anyone wondered if Frank had finally gone off the deep end, this article should put any doubts to rest. He calls his article, "God is such a waste of time - Not to mention hell and the Burning US embassies" and he means it.

"Hell is irrelevant because of course there isn't one. The movie is important though because it exposes a real question: how can we survive the God-nuts who take this stuff seriously? Hellbound? is our chance to get to know the enemies of what's left of our crumbling "civilization."

Talking about hell in and of itself is a waste of time because if there is a "God" no one knows anything about him/her or it and they never will, let alone about what he/she or it will "do" about the "lost." But there are people, lots of them, who think hell is real because it fits their kill-your-neighbor-if-he-looks-at-you-funny vision of "life."

And Frank doesn't just think the idea of hell is a waste of time, here is what he thinks of you if you are a republican:

"The whole unwashed mob that is now the "Republican Party" -- a theocracy movement dedicated to imperial world domination, greed and gated communities, all in the name of a half-baked "Jesus" serving "his" masters on Wall Street who hate the rubes who vote for their bought and paid for "family values" candidates -- is struggling in the grip of their collective God-delusion. Or they are pretending to share that delusion even if they believe in none of it so they can stay in good with the mostly evangelical fact-deprived "Tea Party" crowd."

I think he makes many good points. you can take it al apophatically, you know...

Logged

She hears, upon that water without sound, A voice that cries, “The tomb in Palestine Is not the porch of spirits lingering. It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay.” We live in an old chaos of the sun, Or old dependency of day and night, Or island solitude, unsponsored, free, Of that wide water, inescapable.

If anyone wondered if Frank had finally gone off the deep end, this article should put any doubts to rest. He calls his article, "God is such a waste of time - Not to mention hell and the Burning US embassies" and he means it.

Is this one of those "I'm not sure if I want to be Christian, but if I am a Christian then I'm definitely such-and-such type of Christian because all the other forms of Christianity don't make sense"? (Genuine question. I don't claim to understand Shaeffer, and I'm not sure I want to.)